In an editorial entitled "The Republicans Really Won," which is posted on the CBS website, contributor Lloyd Garver claims, among other things, that the midterm election results are a ploy by the Republicans to solidify long term power, and that the reemergence of veterans of the Bush 41 administration, James Baker and Robert Gates, are part of a plan to elect Bush 41 to a second term in 2008. Garver leads his piece:

Democrats stop celebrating, and Republicans, don't despair. I know the Democrats won the recent election on paper, but in the long run the Republicans just might be the big winners of Election 2006.

In fact, I think the Republicans set the whole thing up so the Democrats could fail over the next two years, which will bring about a big Republican presidential win in 2008.

What other explanation is there? I mean, do you think that Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican brain trust suddenly got stupid? I don't think so.

Garver, who among other things has written for television shows such as Frasier and Sesame Street, asserts that since James Baker pulled out a victory for George W. Bush in 2000 during the Florida recount, fixing Iraq should be easy for him since, in Iraq, he doesn’t have to worry about the courts:

"Baker last surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000, representing the Republican interests. If he could help pull off that victory, maybe some of his mojo can help end the war in Iraq. This might even be easier than 2000 — he won't have to worry about annoying things like election laws and ‘obstructionist’ Supreme Court justices."

Mr. Garver concludes his piece by promoting such an absurd conspiracy theory, it would make Michael Moore blush. Garver pushes the notion that by losing Congressional power and turning to loyalists to Bush 41, the Republican Party is not only scheming to keep the White House in 2008, but keep it in the Bush family by securing a second term for Bush 41:

Other friends and associates of the elder Bush will be helping out, too. But I don't think this is just a case of a father bailing out a son. I think this is all part of a calculated grand scheme by the Grand Old Party to do whatever's necessary to keep the White House in 2008.

So, who do they plan on running for President in 2008? Let's see. Who's comfortable with all these friends and advisors of the first George Bush? Who has experience in waging war against Iraq? And who could become president without saying one negative word about the current president? There's only one man who fits this bill. That's right — George Herbert Walker Bush.

Why not? The President's dad served only one term, so constitutionally he's still eligible. And do you honestly think this scenario is any more far-fetched than some of the things we're going to see in politics over the next two years?

Yes, Mr. Garver’s background is in comedic writing, and his essay is a satirical look at politics. But in his attempt at humor, one can sense that he is seriously worried that Republicans could retake power in two years.